Introduction
Patricia Churchland’s paper titled Inference to the Best Decision argues that humans can make good decisions without having to use normative premises to derive an ought from an is. The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct and evaluate the argument presented by Churchland in the provided passage which argues that the problem of deriving an-ought-from-an-is is not a problem as a solution to it, known as abduction exists that shows humans can make good decisions using case-based reasoning.
P1 – Sensible humans are able to make wise decisions about what they should do without following rules.
P2 – This is achieved through judging situations based on previous situations through case based reasoning.
P3- In doing so, it is proven that invoking normative premises, maxims, rules and using generalizations are not necessary while making good decisions.
C – Therefore, sensible humans have the capability to judge
…show more content…
When Churchland argues that our morality is a response to our human needs and desires, it can easily be argued that human’s living in different cultures have different desires. Churchland’s paper includes an example regarding a mother reacting to her child’s assumed bee sting. She argues that the mother did not need to invoke normative premises regarding a red bump because from prior knowledge and experience, she could come to the conclusion that it is a bee sting. However, though someone may be sensible, they may understand that many insect bites create a similar reaction, and therefore we cannot assume the conclusion that this is a bee sting by using case-based reasoning. In other words, the ought/is problem is
Clifford makes a very strong and valid case for justifying every decision, regardless of how insignificant. Using his view of thinking, it is easy to understand why everyone has a moral right to justify decisions. Without the cooperation of society in making every decision a justified one, it is useless to hold someone accountable for an immoral belief.
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory “picks and chooses” from other existing theories and combines them to make a hybrid theory. Doing so creates difficulties as the overlap reduces clarity and limits the strength of any individual argument. This is a challenge that cannot be overlooked; Sally’s theory fails to show structural reliability and is hence too problematic to have sound moral value.
To the question, "Why should I be moral?" there is a simple answer (SA) that some philosophers find tempting. There is also a response, common enough to be dubbed the standard response (SR), to the simple answer. In what follows I show that SA and SR are unsatisfactory; they share a serious defect.
Gilbert Harman lays out his moral relativism theory with “inner judgments”, the statements concerned with “ought”, in Moral Relativism Defended. However, he assumes an important premise of his theory to be true, which is the reason that I will prove the missing premise – that moral relativism is true – in this paper. Moreover, his form of moral relativism with his “four-place predicate ‘Ought(A,D,C,M),’ which relates an agent A, a type of action D, considerations C, and motivating attitudes M,” has brought about both meta-ethical and practical concerns. He argues that these inner judgments are only possible if agent A acknowledges considerations of the circumstance C, invokes motivating attitudes M, and supports the action D with C and M. In
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
The decision-making model not as simple as selfish or self-interest, it’s the “theory of human choice based on scientific principles of observation and experiment”, but not “postulation and deduction” (page 397). Observation reflects it has been learned or acknowledged from patient look or research about the cause and effect, experiment means it has been thought, be consider the pros and cons. Even though it might not be think over and think through, it must be different than “creating something out of nothing”. There are four princi...
One of the major players in ethical theories has long been the concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that in general the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action is directly related to the utility of that action. Utility is more specifically defined as a measure of the goodness or badness of the consequences of an action (see quote by Mill above). For the purposes of this paper, Utility will be considered to be the tendency to produce happiness. There are two types of Utilitarianism; these are “act” and “rule”. An act utilitarian uses thought processes associated with utilitarianism (i.e. the principle of utility) to make all decisions, this requires a lot of thought and careful calculation. For example, an act utilitarian deciding from a list of possible day trips would sit down and calculate out the utility of each possible decision before coming to a conclusion as to which one was preferable. Contrary to an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian uses the principles of utility to create a set of rules by which they live. Rule utilitarians are not incapable of calculating a decision; they just do not see a need to do it all the time. For example, a rule utilitarian might have some rules like this: in general do not kill, in general do not steal, in general do not lie; but if they found a situation that might except the rule they would do the cal...
Rational choice theory, also known simply as choice theory, is the assessment of a potential offender to commit a crime. Choice theory is the belief that committing a crime is a rational decision, based on cost benefit analysis. The would-be offender will weigh the costs of committing a particular crime: fines, jail time, and imprisonment versus the benefits: money, status, heightened adrenaline. Depending on which factors out-weigh the other, a criminal will decide to commit or forgo committing a crime. This decision making process makes committing a crime a rational choice. This theory can be used to explain why an offender will decide to commit burglary, robbery, aggravated assault, or murder.
Therefore after looking at these theories I have noticed that there is no exact way of proving morals with reason and that moral judgment is still on the basis of personal opinion. Lastly is the question of whether having a definite answer makes a question more or less important. While judgments of fact are important because they widen our knowledge, it is the ambiguous questions that seem the most important. It is they which inspire art and to which has been dedicated much work and thought.
Over time, the actions of mankind have been the victim of two vague labels, right and wrong. The criteria for these labels are not clearly defined, but they still seem to be the standard by which the actions of man are judged. There are some people that abide by a deontological view when it comes to judging the nature of actions; the deontological view holds that it is a person's intention that makes an action right or wrong. On the other hand there is the teleological view which holds that it is the result of an action is what makes that act right or wrong. In this essay I will be dealing with utilitarianism, a philosophical principle that holds a teleological view when it comes the nature of actions. To solely discuss utilitarianism is much too broad of topic and must be broken down, so I will discuss specifically quantitative utilitarianism as presented by Jeremy Bentham. In this essay I will present the argument of Bentham supporting his respective form of utilitarianism and I will give my critique of this argument along the way.
An employee does an unsatisfactory job on an assigned project. Explain the attribution process that this person's manager will use to form judgments about this employee's job performance.
What is the right choice? If you had to make a decision would you follow your heart or head? Two poems written by different authors both leave the main characters feeling conflicted with making the right choice. The main characters are faced with a decision that cause them to think within themselves.
Making decisions is an important part of our everyday life. Decisions define actions and lead to the achievement of goals. However, these depend on the effectiveness of the decision-making process. An effective decision is free from biases, uncertainties, and is deeply dependent on information and critical thinking. Poor decisions lead to the inability to achieve set objectives and could lead to losses, if finance is a factor. Therefore, it is important to contemplate about quality and ways to achieve it in decision-making, which is the focus of this paper. The purpose is to look into the needs of decision-making, including what one should do and what one should not do.